How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2048

Post 2041 is from oldbadger.

I just went back and checked and post #2041 is indeed mine. Oldbadger may have posted the same elsewhere, but I looked up the sections I posted myself.

The blood is red, which should not normally happen when blood is on a cloth.

After a detailed analysis of these particles by using various types of microscopes and by performing different spectral analyses like Raman and EDX, the results obtained are commented, reaching the conclusion that the analyzed reddish material, corresponding to some TS bloodstain area, contain human blood reinforced with pigments. It can therefore be supposed that the bloodstains, originally composed of blood, have been refreshed by some artist perhaps during the XVII century.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7417300092

If the cloth was tampered with that early, it could have been tampered with even earlier.

And why would anyone feel a need to tamper with it at all if it was the genuine article to begin with?

The nail wounds in the hands do not conform to medieval artist depictions and are more medically accurate.

You're insinuating that there were no historians in the 14th century.

Many years later, it was a housewife, who was not even a shroud professional, that turned it all upside down

A housewife who was not a shroud professional. That says a lot.

The paper you cite in post #1929 was published in 2000. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, a textiles expert, did her work on the cloth in 2002, so anything noted about the cloth two years previous she would presumably have known about. She rejected the reweaving claim.

And I still don't think you've adequately explained how the cloth could be "partially" stretched, making one side of the image longer than the other.

Who's arguing that the Bible is inerrant?

Not you. You can't, and I still suspect that this is why you latch so tightly onto the TS. It's all you have to go on, your last resort, so it has to be genuine.......it just has to. Without inerrancy, the Bible is just another book, so something extraordinary has to give it a pedestal to raise it above all others.

The problem is that the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is refuted by so many other factors that this alone makes the question of the TS moot, regardless of how many experts argue back and forth over it. The image on the TS cannot be that of a Messiah who disqualified himself in as many ways as did Jesus, so such a relic is a mighty thin string to hang your hopes on.

[oldbadger]

The TS isn't mentioned in the Bible. How does it have anything to do with the Bible, other than a vague reference to the burial?

The TS is corroborated with the Biblical passages of the scourging, crucifixion, death, burial in a shroud, and resurrection of Christ. Should I post all the passages in reference to those for you?

But here is why the Bible isn't trustworthy:

Irrelevant to the current discussions of the TS. Do you have any actual arguments and evidence to support the TS is a fake?

Hang on.......... Nobody has to produce evidence that a story is not true, it is for you to present evidence that the Turin Shroud is really what Jesus was wrapped in. Yes? And you are going to present this, yes?

I don't think that Jesus died that day, rather that he survived and was got clear away. After all, his friends saw him up by Gennesaret not long afterwards. And that spear thrust cleared his right lung of blood and fluids so that he could breath again, just as I have seen carried out on a kid in a television documentary about an A&E ward. Now this isn't proof, it simply gives me reason to doubt any resurrection, and thus I doubt the claims about this shroud.

I acknowledge your belief that the Turin Shroud is real, I just don't join you in this.

But if you could show your evidence I would certainly read it and think about it.

[boatsnguitars]

Even if the TS was shown to have wrapped Jesus, it wouldn't make the Bible inerrant.

Who's arguing that the Bible is inerrant?

Oteseng,
Can you use your exceptional research abilities and tell me what the Subject of this thread is?

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2048

Post 2041 is from oldbadger.

I just went back and checked and post #2041 is indeed mine. Oldbadger may have posted the same elsewhere, but I looked up the sections I posted myself.

Here's what I see in post 2041:

I've never even read or heard of a shroud expert that makes the claim the TS is proven to be legit. There will always be an element of faith involved since it cannot be proven to a 100% probability that it is authentic.

I don't challenge people's beliefs, rather I do my best to acknowledge them .

There is a proposed line of connection between 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century that is plausible and is backed by logical argumentation and evidence. I'll be presenting that later.

Now a plausable proposal supported by some evidence would be interesting to read.

After a detailed analysis of these particles by using various types of microscopes and by performing different spectral analyses like Raman and EDX, the results obtained are commented, reaching the conclusion that the analyzed reddish material, corresponding to some TS bloodstain area, contain human blood reinforced with pigments. It can therefore be supposed that the bloodstains, originally composed of blood, have been refreshed by some artist perhaps during the XVII century.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7417300092

I'm not able to read the full article, but it's doubtful Fanti is claiming all the blood stains are red due to medieval touch up painting. Rather, he has a more recent paper that states:

New studies based on X-Ray photographs of the Turin Shroud (TS) from 1978 and new quantitative tests induced the author to reexamine the viability of a hypothesis he had discussed in a prior work [1] where he stated that “A possible explanation for the presence of blood and pigments in the samples studied is that the bloodstains were originally produced by human blood which faded with time … (and) have been reinforced by artists in the past centuries.” In fact, the new quantitative results exclude red ochre/iron oxide and vermillion/mercuric sulfide as being responsible for the redness of the stains of blood that are visible with the naked eye on the TS. Having ascertained this result, two problems now arise. First, the origin of the additional reddish material found in correspondence with the TS bloodstains needs an explanation. A hypothesis to be confirmed is that the over 50 documented painted copies of the Relic made in past centuries may have deposited some pigment when they were pressed onto the TS, to be sanctified into higher order relics. The second problem concerns the explanation of the continued redness of the TS bloodstains. In addition to the hypothesis regarding the effects of ultraviolet rays on the high bilirubin content in the bloodstains on the TS and of the presence of carboxyhemoglobin, the author considers the redness of blood coming from an alleged Eucharistic Miracle.

http://psjd.icm.edu.pl/psjd/element/bwm ... 9c7656d384

If the cloth was tampered with that early, it could have been tampered with even earlier. And why would anyone feel a need to tamper with it at all if it was the genuine article to begin with?

According to Fanti, the paint particles are a result of "over 50 documented painted copies of the Relic made in past centuries may have deposited some pigment when they were pressed onto the TS, to be sanctified into higher order relics."

The nail wounds in the hands do not conform to medieval artist depictions and are more medically accurate.

You're insinuating that there were no historians in the 14th century.

Never said there were or were not any historians in the 14th century. I fail to see your point though. If there were historians in the 14th century, how would it affect things?

Many years later, it was a housewife, who was not even a shroud professional, that turned it all upside down

A housewife who was not a shroud professional. That says a lot.

What does it say? That whatever a housewife or a non-professional says should automatically be discounted? Are any of us professionals? If we are not professionals, then on what basis can we base our arguments on?

The paper you cite in post #1929 was published in 2000. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, a textiles expert, did her work on the cloth in 2002, so anything noted about the cloth two years previous she would presumably have known about. She rejected the reweaving claim.

Yes, their original proposal was posted on shroud.com. But since they were non-professionals and it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, why should any scientist take it seriously?

And I still don't think you've adequately explained how the cloth could be "partially" stretched, making one side of the image longer than the other.

Correct, I do not have a full solution to this yet. I only have a partial explanation that a cloth cannot be expected to maintain the exact same shape after thousands of years when it's been exposed to multiple handlings and environmental changes.

Not you. You can't, and I still suspect that this is why you latch so tightly onto the TS.

No, I only started to do serious study on the TS months ago. My skepticism of inerrancy developed years ago and debated on this in 2019 in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

It's all you have to go on, your last resort, so it has to be genuine.......it just has to.

My motive would be immaterial in whether the TS is authentic or not. Rather, that would be an ad hom fallacy to discuss me rather than discuss evidence.

Without inerrancy, the Bible is just another book, so something extraordinary has to give it a pedestal to raise it above all others.

No, the Bible is not just another book. I've argued at length that it's not just another book in this thread. Have you read through this thread from the beginning? If you have something specific to challenge, please quote what I've said from this thread.

The problem is that the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is refuted by so many other factors that this alone makes the question of the TS moot, regardless of how many experts argue back and forth over it. The image on the TS cannot be that of a Messiah who disqualified himself in as many ways as did Jesus, so such a relic is a mighty thin string to hang your hopes on.

As for Jesus being the Messiah, that will be for another argument. What I'm arguing for now is Jesus resurrected from the dead.

[otseng]

Hang on.......... Nobody has to produce evidence that a story is not true, it is for you to present evidence that the Turin Shroud is really what Jesus was wrapped in. Yes? And you are going to present this, yes?

What skeptics need to do is produce evidence to support an alternative claim. If the TS is a fake, then skeptics need to produce evidence that it is a fake.

I don't think that Jesus died that day, rather that he survived and was got clear away. After all, his friends saw him up by Gennesaret not long afterwards.

People saw him afterwards because he was physically resurrected.

As for if Jesus was actually dead, the TS is evidence he was dead since he was in a state of rigor mortis. See post 1737.

But if you could show your evidence I would certainly read it and think about it.

I've been posting them ever since I started discussing the TS in post 1599. If there's a specific challenge to the evidence I've posted already, you can quote it and we can discuss.

[otseng]

Can you use your exceptional research abilities and tell me what the Subject of this thread is?

Here you go:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

[boatsnguitars]

Can you use your exceptional research abilities and tell me what the Subject of this thread is?

Here you go:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

Sure, but what does the TS have to do with it?

Let's cut to the chase. Let's presume you've shown the shroud is not Medieval and something unnatural that affected the shroud.

How does this make us trust the Bible? After all, there are other things that are wrong in the Bible. The OT stole the Flood story, so I'd assume the Bible stole the Resurrection Story from the ancient Summerian tale of Dumuzid and Inanna.

Neti then tells her to stay where she is while he goes to speak with Ereshkigal.

When Neti delivers the news to Ereshkigal that Inanna is at the gates, the Queen of the Dead responds in a way which seems strange: “She slapped her thigh and bit her lip. She took the matter into her heart and dwelt on it” (Wolkstein and Kramer, 56). She does not seem pleased to hear the news that her sister is at the gate and her displeasure is further evidenced when she tells Neti to bolt the seven gates of the underworld against Inanna and then let her in, one gate at a time, requiring her to remove one of her royal garments at each gate. Neti does as he is commanded and, gate by gate, Inanna is stripped of her crown, beads, ring, sceptre, even her clothing and, when she asks the meaning of this indignity, is told by Neti:

Quiet, Inanna, the ways of the underworld are perfect
They may not be questioned.
(Wolkstein and Kramer 58-60)

Inanna enters the throne room of Ereshkigal “naked and bowed low” and begins walking toward the throne when:

The annuna, the judges of the underworld, surrounded her
They passed judgment against her.
Then Ereshkigal fastened on Inanna the eye of death
She spoke against her the word of wrath
She uttered against her the cry of guilt
She struck her.
Inanna was turned into a corpse
A piece of rotting meat
And was hung from a hook on the wall.
(Wolkstein and Kramer, 60)

After three days and three nights waiting for her mistress, Ninshubur follows the commands Inanna gave her, goes to Inanna's father-god Enki for help, and receives two `galla', two transgender beings created "neither male nor female", to aid her in returning Inanna to the earth. The galla enter the underworld “like flies” and, following Enki's specific instructions, attach themselves closely to Ereshkigal. The Queen of the Dead is seen in distress:

No linen was spread over her body
Her breasts were uncovered
Her hair swirled around her head like leeks.
(Wolkstein and Kramer, 63-66)

The poem continues to describe the queen experiencing the pains of labor. The galla sympathize with the queen's pains and she, in gratitude, offers them whatever gift they ask for. As ordered by Enki, the galla respond, “We wish only the corpse that hangs from the hook on the wall” (Wolkstein and Kramer, 67) and Ereshkigal gives it to them. The galla revive Inanna with the food and water of life and she rises from the dead.

Maybe the image is of Inanna? After all, no linen was spread over her body when they found her.

Amazing, no? That Christianity is built on prior myths?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2054

New studies based on X-Ray photographs of the Turin Shroud (TS) from 1978 and new quantitative tests induced the author to reexamine the viability of a hypothesis he had discussed in a prior work [1] where he stated that “A possible explanation for the presence of blood and pigments in the samples studied is that the bloodstains were originally produced by human blood which faded with time … (and) have been reinforced by artists in the past centuries.” In fact, the new quantitative results exclude red ochre/iron oxide and vermillion/mercuric sulfide as being responsible for the redness of the stains of blood that are visible with the naked eye on the TS. Having ascertained this result, two problems now arise. First, the origin of the additional reddish material found in correspondence with the TS bloodstains needs an explanation. A hypothesis to be confirmed is that the over 50 documented painted copies of the Relic made in past centuries may have deposited some pigment when they were pressed onto the TS, to be sanctified into higher order relics.

In other words, someone has thrown out the idea that the cloth got paint on it from copies. Hypothesis doesn't qualify as evidence.

Here's what I see in post 2041:

Odd. In your post #2048, the link to #2041 takes me to #2035.

Never said there were or were not any historians in the 14th century. I fail to see your point though. If there were historians in the 14th century, how would it affect things?

Competent 14th-century historians could have known how the Romans carried out crucifixions. That's easy enough to understand, isn't it?

As for Jesus being the Messiah, that will be for another argument. What I'm arguing for now is Jesus resurrected from the dead.

You can hardly argue that he was resurrected from the dead without arguing that he was the Messiah from a Christian perspective.

It's questionable that Jesus even received a spear wound. The only gospel writer to mention it is John, and he claims it as the fulfillment of a scriptural passage which he misquotes.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ariah-1210

Even if Jesus did receive a spear wound, it wouldn't have been the prophetic fulfillment that John says it was.

[Athetotheist]

And I still don't think you've adequately explained how the cloth could be "partially" stretched, making one side of the image longer than the other.

Correct, I do not have a full solution to this yet. I only have a partial explanation that a cloth cannot be expected to maintain the exact same shape after thousands of years when it's been exposed to multiple handlings and environmental changes.

"Flax fibers are inherently strong, which is why linen is so long-lasting. They are also not very elastic."

https://www.linenbeauty.com/blog/does-l ... ic-stretch

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2054

According to Fanti, the paint particles are a result of "over 50 documented painted copies of the Relic made in past centuries may have deposited some pigment when they were pressed onto the TS, to be sanctified into higher order relics."

This absence of body image on the wound image margins suggests that the blood images were present on the cloth before the body image was "placed," "appeared," or perhaps "developed." This suggestion is consistent with the chemistry of the body-only image, because this thinner fluid could have coated these margin fibrils sealing them and preventing the advanced decomposition reaction. This conclusion is supported by microscopic examination of the fibrils from the blood areas after removing the serum coating by protease digestion. Fibrils, so treated, more closely resemble those from the off-image olear areas than those from the body-only image areas when viewed by phase contrast microscopy.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ba-1984-0205.ch022

At least some of these sources have been deemed questionable.

"Another of the four co-authors is University of Padua professor Guilio Fanti, whom I know as a zealous pro-shroud researcher (author of a book, Il Mistero della Sindone, i. e., “The Mystery of the Shroud”) and one who uses highly dubious tests to supposedly authenticate the shroud as Jesus’ burial cloth."

......

"But even if the samples had been valid, the claims made from them are not. Carlino et al. are drawing conclusions from a fiber with “red crusts” which they assume to be blood, based on the discredited work of John Heller and Alan Adler who lacked the necessary expertise. They claimed to have “identified the presence of blood, “ but used an additive approach (this plus that) while lacking any definitive test for blood."

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/turin ... till_fake/